MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925235104 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x18001875

How uncertainty begets hope: A model of adaptive and maladaptive seeking behavior

2019· letter· en· W2925235104 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Zack

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoarding (animal behavior)PsychologyIncentiveSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyFeeding behaviorEconomicsMicroeconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The "incentive hope" model creatively explains hoarding and fat accumulation by foragers under uncertainty and food seeking when food cues are present but food is not. The model has difficulty explaining why animals driven by cues fare better than animals driven by food reward itself, why human obesity exists when food is abundant, and why people enjoy gambling and care about winning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0200.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207